Before we are quick to make assumptions, I don't see anywhere saying in the article this man was a Jehovah's Witness.
Tragic all the same, don't get me wrong. But I don't see it saying anything about denomination.
EDIT: nvm read it again and saw.
http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/inquest-concludes-dad-died-margate-night-went/story-26272711-detail/story.html.
this story makes me ill with rage.
this man's crime?
Before we are quick to make assumptions, I don't see anywhere saying in the article this man was a Jehovah's Witness.
Tragic all the same, don't get me wrong. But I don't see it saying anything about denomination.
EDIT: nvm read it again and saw.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Is that so? Let's see if it holds truth. The first ad hominem came from you.
You lied about Aten.Then
You are impervious to reason,logic and sensible use of language.Your dishonesty is becoming intolerable
Im only chiming in again so it's not one persons word against another.
None of these quotes you've chosen are insulting. They are observations and conclusions based on your words and posts.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
As we left it last, so far we still don't have clue what absentheism is actually saying (or not) and I suspect we never will.
Albert Hitchcock style. :P
charity tribunal rejects jehovahs witnesses charities' latest appeal attempt.
governance | kirsty weakley | 9 apr 2015 a jehovahs witnesses charity has been refused permission to appeal a charity tribunal ruling that had denied it extra time to appeal against the opening of a statutory inquiry.
the watchtower bible and tract society and appealed the charity tribunals decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the charity commission.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
I welcome your participation, but when the subject is theism / atheism, you manage to make your intervention extremely unpleasant, bordering the insult, and you hijack the thread to suit your proselitizing agenda.
I feel the need to point out this is kind of instigatory. These kind of comments are what initiated Coftys more.. assertive replies.
I feel compelled to defend cofty here just because I can't disagree with this statement more or I would. I've been on your side of things Eden and while I did get frustrated with some of Coftys points, like when discussing the Quran for instance, it was never how you describe here. It was an honest debate and discourse and Coftys posts are just to the point and factual. It may come across cold, and thus aggressive but it's just straightforward. Even when on your side I actually appreciated this about each post. You have to remember, or rather I suggest remembering, that how something comes across (especially when lacking tone of voice such as text) is completely up to you - not cofty.
I even look back and appreciate some of Vivs posts to a point (lol). And I agree with everything she's said here.
i have thought about how ttatt came full circle for me.
how the connecting the dots was simple and just made sense,.
how silos of information are literally at our fingertips today.. why is it that the ones we love cannot get ttatt?.
As was pretty much said above, I firmly believe many don't WANT to see ttat. If they don't want it they won't get it.
You have to realize that these people have many reasons to want the lie. My mother has lost loved ones very dear to her, and she believes she'll see them again. In her mind if you take the so called "truth" away that hope goes with it. The question, "what if I'll never see them again?" for her would be extremely distressing, perhaps even damaging.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Lol Viv. That's like this ENTIRE thread. Just about. Fo real.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty was no where being a bully. In a debate or a discussion you have to agree upon definitions and subjects. Wanting to define the God being discussed isn't bullying. If you can prove a God exists but is absent, everyone is going to want to see it.
Before you can assert this proof or make any suggestions or postulations you have to establish what God you're talking about. Then we can talk about the evidence. This was a civil discussion through and through until you were defensive. .
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
I used this example to counter Cofty's silly assertion that "absence" pressuposes "existence"
Ok but here's the problem. Every other definition of absent DOES presuppose existence except this one.
So either you're using the one that means non existent, and are agreeing with people like me; or, you're using one that presupposes existence and cofty is right.
Either scenario, you lose.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that God is absent
Right. And per your own definition from websters absent means not present or NONEXISTENT.
Thats called checkmate.